OT - VOTE!!! - (US Citizens)

[apsuman]

Here in Germany, the head of government is the Chancellor, while the head of state is the president.

The Chancellor sets the policies, picks the ministers, and generally runs the government, with all the dirty politics this implies.

The German President signs the laws and appoints the government. Essentially, this means that he has veto powers - but these are only exercised in the rarest of circumstances. In general, the President stays in the background, aways from daily politics, and serves as some kind of "moral guardian" of the nation. The real power is with the Chancellor, and everyone knows it.



I doubt that Schroeder himself said that - I think opposition politicians were making that comment. Schroeder himself fully intends to hang on until the next regular election.

I remember reading that Schroeder said that he fully expected that the government would fail within a year. Now just because I remembered it does not mean it really happened that way. I do know that i was shocked that the statement was made so matter of factly. (Again, we Americans do not really understand the idea of government dissolving, especially over a vote on one issue.)

Who picks the president? And with any sort of veto power at all why does it get used in a political way?

g!

 

[apsuman]

You are also probably bitter because you are misinformed about the nature of how seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned. [/B]

Come on Storm Raven, play nice.

g!

 

[Storm Raven]

So what happens when (in the case of CA) the people are then registered to vote? Granted there is a significant portion that choose not to (or never become citizens) there is a huge number that do become citizens and register. No other state has lost votes, so CA can't gain anymore.

This is not just in CA, but New York, Philadelphia, Dallas and other major cities are huge places for immigrants to come to start a new life. They hope to become citizens (and will). Where will their representation come form?

The calculation of representatives works like this:

(1) Take the total population figures from the national census (~284 million last census). Divide that number by 435. Right now that results in a figure of about 652,000.

(2) Figure out the population of each individual State from the national census (~ 34 million for California last census). Divide that number by the 652,000 figure you got in the last step. This results in 52 Representatives for California.

Now, you are concerned about what happens if California has a big influx of immigrants who become citizens. Let's assume that the 2010 census shows that California's population has risen to 68 million, while the population of the rest of the country has remained unchanged (unrealistic, but this is just for explanatory purposes), making the total U.S. population ~318 million. Now follow the two steps:

(1) 318 million divided by 435 is about 731,000.

(2) 68 million divided by 731,000 is 92. California would have ~92 members of the House (factoring out issues like South Dakota, which has fewer than 731,000 residents but still is entitled to a member of the House).

The other States in the country would lose a total of 40 representatives, spread more or less evenly across the country. Virginia, for example, has a population of about 7 million. Right now it has ~10 Representatives in the House. If California's population doubled like in my hypothetical, and Virginia's remained stable, Virginia would only have ~9 Representatives (there are rounding errors in there, but the principle is the same regardless, Virginia would lose some representation in the House, while California would gain).

 

[Balgus]

i withdraw the stuff i said. I did not know it was based on the census, and not on the citizen/ resident alien in a state.

makes sense- and seems fair...

thank you all for you rinfo

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

(Again, we Americans do not really understand the idea of government dissolving, especially over a vote on one issue.)

Come to think of it, there was one vote where the continuation of the German government was in doubt in the last four years. This was when the Bundestag was supposed to vote whether or not the German Army should participate in combat missions during the Kosovo war.

Two of the opposition parties were going to vote in favor of it - but several representatives of the junior coalition partner, the Green party, were saying that they were going to vote against it. This would have meant that the government coalition couldn't have pushed this through without help from the opposition - which would have been a major humiliation for the Chancellor.

So Schröder combined this vote with a "Vote of Confidence" - if the bill had been voted down, the government would have to be dissolved and new elections would have to be called.

It worked as Schröder intended. Rather than letting the government fail, the Greens voted for the bill as well.

Who picks the president?

The Chancellor makes a suggestion, and both the Bundestag and representatived of the German states vote on it. Usually the Chancellor gets his wish, though sometimes there is some heavy politicing involved...

And with any sort of veto power at all why does it get used in a political way?

The veto power is normally (and so far) used only when the president has doubts that the law doesn't adhere to the German consitution...

Sure, the German president has certain powers - but much of the respect most Germans have for this office comes from the fact that he rarely useses them...

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Re: Rights, voting, and off-year elections

Earlier I mentioned that our system is one of plurality voting -- one vote per person, winner takes all -- and that means you're "throwing away" your vote when you vote for a third-party candidate.

Other voting schemes help avoid this trap. From the Election Selection article I mentioned earlier (from Science News):

Other voting systems abound. One alternative is the instant runoff, a procedure used in Australia and Ireland that eliminates candidates one at a time from rankings provided by each voter. Another is the Borda count, a point system devised by the 18th-century French mathematician Jean Charles Borda, which is now used to rank college football and basketball teams. A third is approval voting, used by several scientific societies, in which participants may cast votes for as many of the candidates as they choose.

This is all a separate issue from how we group regions via the electoral college, etc.

Under an approval voting scheme, for instance, voters could vote for both Nader and Gore (or Bush and Buchanan, or whatever).

 

[apsuman]

Come to think of it, there was one vote where the continuation of the German government was in doubt in the last four years. This was when the Bundestag was supposed to vote whether or not the German Army should participate in combat missions during the Kosovo war.

I understand that it can be rare. I guess the ruling coalition gets to set the calendar of what gets voted on and probably the wording as well. But in other parliamentary systems Israel comes to mind, but there have been others, a slim coalition results in a greater chance to dissolve a government before the next regualr elections.

It's not bad, just odd to this American.

g!

 

[Atticus_of_Amber]

The whole point of a republican (small r) government is to push extremist views to the margins of politics. I don't like systems that try to increase the influence of minor parties.

Hmmm, my inpression is that preferential voting proportional representation create a less extreame form of governemnt, at least in places like Australia and Germany.

In Australia, becasause minor parties control the balance of power in the Senate, there is a kind of moderating effect - the rough edges are knocked off the the hardline policies of which ever party is in government and thus controlling the legislative agenda.

 

[Storminator]

Have the events of 9/11 triggered such a pattern? I suppose we won't know for 2 years, at least...

Unlikely. The political shift has been well underway for the last 10 years. In 1994 the Republicans took control of Congress, and haven't relinquished the House since. Except for a brief period after the Jeffords defection, they have held the Senate as well.

Before 1994 the Democrats held the House for the aforementioned 40 years, and the Senate for much of that time. So it seems we are 10 years into the 40 year cycle.

An event like 9/11 is more likely, IMO, to break such cycles.

PS

 

[Mark Chance]

Nope....

The electoral machine runs on money. Who ever raises the most money wins the game, because they control access to information. Election is a media war.

There is no cause-effect relationship between most-dollars-spent and who-wins. The current gubernatorial race in Texas alone shows as much. The loser spent considerably more money than the winner, and yet is still the loser.